Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 52 (2020) Crime as Cognitive Constraint taken by Facebook to prevent and remedy the abuse of its platform needs to be assessed. 9 The FFM found that social media played a “significant” role in the spread of incitement in Myanmar, and that Facebook served as a “useful instrument” for hate speech 10 “in a context where for most users Facebook is the Internet.” 11 To be used, to serve as an instrument – by using the passive voice to describe Facebook’s actions, the FFM obscured the platform’s agency and avoided the attribution of legal responsibility to Facebook as a company engaged in the business of content moderation. Such silence is to be expected. International law has only recognized two regimes of legal responsibility – for states and natural persons – in regulating incitement to genocide. The Genocide Convention imposes on states the duty to prevent and punish genocide within their borders (including incitement to genocide), 12 while international criminal law prosecutes natural persons for statements amounting to direct and public incitement to commit genocide. 13 In contrast, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights 9. Detailed Findings of the FFM, supra note 7, ¶ 1354. Even prior to the release of the FFM report, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar Yanghee Lee expressed concern that Facebook had been a site of incitement to violence against the Rohingya. Similarly, FFM Chair Marzuki Darusman described Facebook to have played a “determining role” in the conflict and have “substantively contributed to the level of acrimony and dissension and conflict in Myanmar. See Tom Miles, U.N. Investigators Cite Facebook Role in Myanmar Crisis, REUTERS (Mar. 12, 2018), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmarrohingya-facebook/u-n-investigators-cite-facebook-role-inmyanmarcrisis-idUSKCN1GO2PN [https://perma.cc/AR9N-97XN]; Eli Meixler, U.N. Fact-finders Say Facebook Played a Determining Role in Violence (Mar. 12, Against the Rohingya, TIME 2018), http://time.com/5197039/un-facebookmyanmar-rohingyaviolence/ [https://perma.cc/A6D2-5AV6]. 10. I use the term “hate speech” here following the FFM’s terminology, but note the lack of definition of hate speech under international law and the varying treatment across jurisdictions on hate speech legislation. Incitement to violence, however, constitutes a narrower scope of prohibited expression. See generally Hate Speech Explained: A Toolkit, ARTICLE 19 (Dec. 23, 2019), https://www.article19.org/resources/hatespeech-explained-a-toolkit/ [https://perma.cc/78J4-AZK8]; Susan Benesch et al., Dangerous Speech: A Practical Guide, DANGEROUS SPEECH PROJECT (Jan. 9, 2020), https://dangerousspeech.org/guide/ [https://perma.cc/5QGE-TRYC] (coining the word “dangerous speech” and differentiating it from “hate speech”). 11. FFM Report summary, supra note 2, ¶ 74. 12. Genocide Convention, supra note 6, art. V, VIII. 13. Id. art. III(c), art. IV. 146